Ultimate Supreme Court Nerdery Part I

David and Sarah discuss the end of Rep. Justin Amash’s short-lived presidential bid, preview a ...

May 18, 2020

David and Sarah discuss the end of Rep. Justin Amash’s short-lived presidential bid, preview a number of upcoming Supreme Court decisions from Little Sisters of the Poor to the Blaine Amendment case, and the New York Times column taking a closer look at Ronan Farrow.

Show Notes:

–The agonizing story of Tara Reade

–A Guide To the 10 Biggest Supreme Court Cases of This Term

–A Glossary of Important SCOTUS Terminology

–Not Everyone Is Happy With the Supreme Court’s Live Broadcasts

–Is Ronan Farrow Too Good to Be True?

–ProPublica: Disaster in the Pacific

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Conversations (9)

Comments (9)

Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.

Sort by:

Theirn Scott 4 years ago

Sarah, thank you for the Ben Smith recommendation. The piece on Ronan Farrow is a brave and excellent bit of journalism.

As someone who has been a member of the Libertarian Party for 20 years Amash would have been an interesting addition to the conversation, especially if he could have attained the 15% threshold. But we all know that probably would not have happened.

So, instead of perhaps getting 3% of the vote we'll be back to less than 1%.

Collapse

Kevin Johnson 4 years ago

Enjoyed this one, as usual. At the end I do think you both let Ronan Farrow off very lightly. David stresses that “conservatives take issue with him due to Kavanaugh case” and that his article on Kavanaugh should not have been published, in David’s opinion. But neither Dispatcher mentioned the elephant in the room: Farrow is an advocate doing advocacy journalism; he is not doing reporting, even if you add the term “narrative “. Some of it is good and useful, and some of it (K. case) was a scandalously partisan hit job designed to destroy someone without evidence. Not just a minor slip on the way to journalism hall of fame, I think. The fact that only “some conservatives” are bothered by this, rather than most fair minded observers being disgusted by it, is a real problem. Pulitzers are given for partisan hit jobs and for perversions of history, like 1619 project, and that is corrosive. “Me Too” stories are important. Farrow deserves kudos for some reporting. But turning “me too” into political slander, as with Kavanaugh, damaged that movement, journalism, and basic fairness.

Collapse

Brian Levy 4 years ago

Never go full ultimate Supreme Court nerd. Partial nerd is fine. Looking forward to the top 5.

Collapse

Kaitlin Johnson 4 years ago

For what reason would a SCOTUS Justice recuse themself from a case? How frequently does that happen?

Collapse

Angie 4 years ago

I wondered the same thing

Collapse

Pastorfbt 4 years ago

As a recovering lawyer - wow such nerdery. Flashbacks!

Collapse

ROBERT 4 years ago

First: Wow, my life has been permanently enhanced because I now know of and understand the legal concept of DIG! I wouldn't say my life is now complete- but well done Sarah!
Second: I continue with the David French praise tour that I am currently on. Contrast his discussion of the ministerial exception case with his Sunday columns. In those Sunday columns he passionately explains how his religious faith informs his view of current events and argues how faith guides his actions. But during this podcast he demonstrated another example of how he does not allow that faith to cloud his intellectual analysis of facts and logic. This is a difficult line to balance. Well done David!

Collapse

Angie 4 years ago

I really enjoyed this as always...but..I gotta say, I am no slouch in the brains department ( for lack of a better way to put it and not sound arrogant...lol)...But, I got lost in the discussion about the Sisters of the Poor, not the specific case so much but, other aspects around it...wish I would have written down where I got lost...I even rewound and went back...lol

I actually work in a law firm, but not as an Atty, as the bookkeeper/operations mgr..though we don't do this kind of law, and I don't know much about the Supreme Court and how it works, though I am learning a lot from David and Sarah..thank you very much.

Collapse

PM 4 years ago

Anyone can be president. I prefer those who have been governors or who have years of experience. But I really prefer governors. Rep. Amash brings more to the table than Gracie Allen, Pat Paulsen, or Howard the Duck but wisely chose to bow out. Of course, for those who choose to protest vote, he'll still be an option.

Collapse